The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1887-12-26
DALLAS CITY COUNCIL.
A Question of Taxation The
Mayors Veto of the New
Sidewalk Ordinance.

The city council met in regular ses-
sion Saturday night and after trans
acting a small amount of business ad-
journed till next Wednesday night.
The Dallas Turner's presented pc
tition praying that 5000 taxes co..
lected on the Turner Hall 30 returneG
to them OH the ground that the OF GAM
zation owning the property is an ins.-
tuition "dcvoted to the education Q.
its members, and of the children fthe
city, and the relief of the poor and up-
fortunate" The question raised by
presentation of the petition was a
nice one and brought forth considera-
BILE discussion before the petition was
disposed OF which resulted in refer
ring it to the committee on municipal
affairs where decision in tho matter
will be watched with no little interest.
This was thought to finish up the
routine of business for the evening
and the council was on the eve of adj
journing when Mayor Conner present.
cd the following as his reasons for vt-
tong the new ordinance allowing
wholesale merchants to use half the
width of sidewalks in front of their
places of business for storage purpo
SEES:
| have the honor to herewith return
to your honorable body with my dis
approval, the ordinance amending Sec
ton of all ordinance entitled, An
ordinance prohibiting the obstruction
of sidewalks passed at Il regular meet
ing of the council, Dec. IL, 1887, and l
submit the following reasons for my
action: The original ordinance ap
pears to me 10 DC a just and equitable
measure without being enacted in the
interest ofany class of dealers. Itpro-
vides that all merchants or dealers are
permitted to occupy half of the side
walks for receiving and discharging
goods, and that they are allowed 20
use the same for six hours each day
without molestation. This ordinance
has been in force since Feb. 20, 1880,
and appears TO have given general
sati faction, while the amendment to
it makes an exception in favor of one
class of dealers, giving them the right
TO use half of the entirc sidewalk on
the side streets where they occupy
corner lots and where they occupy i'll
side operty permitting them TO use
half OF the sidew ak OH the principal
thoroughfares of the city to the great
damage OF all surrounding property
and OF those who are not so fortunate
as to be Included in the exceptions
made under the amended ordinance.
| see no serious objections to allow
ing merchants the use of parts of the
sidewalk on side streets where the To-
cllity is not frequented by pedestri-
ans, and believe that special permits
should be granted under these condi-
tions; but TO permit anv class of mer-
chants to occupy without restriction
half OF the size walks oil the pruclpal
business streets and thoroughiares Of
the city would be setting n dangerous
precedent and creating nuisance that
your honorable body must soon see
the magnitude of aud be compelled to
abate.
AS to the legal construction that
would be placed upon the ordinance.
do not care to discuss it further than
to remark that it is an ordinance en-
acted to benefit the few as against the
many who should be entitled to the
same consideration, and who, if put
to the test, would, in my opinion, re-
ceive it. Therefore. gentlemen, re-
turn the ordinance without my APP
proval. w. Z. CoNNoR,
Mayor.